Regina v PL [2008] NSWDC 66

Regina v PL [2008] NSWDC 66

The court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the assaults occurred in December 1969 or January 1970 or in the manner alleged by the complainants. It accepted only the offender's admitted version that he committed indecent assaults when he was about 15 and a half years old. Having regard to the sentencing standards and Children's Court outcomes likely at the time, the offender's youth, contrition, good character, service as a teacher, the serious impact on the victims, and the severe extra-curial consequences of conviction including sex offender registration and employment restrictions, the appropriate sentence was to convict the offender of each offence but impose no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Indecent Assault / Sentencing After Admissions, With Disputed Facts as to the Time and Manner of the Offences
Outcome
The offender was convicted of each offence, but no additional penalty was imposed pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'historical Sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'victim Impact Statements' 'good Character' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'section 10 a Conviction With No Additional Penalty']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['indecent Assault' 'historical Sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'victim Impact Statements' 'good Character' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'section 10 a Conviction With No Additional Penalty']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence for Indecent Assault / Sentencing After Admissions, With Disputed Facts as to the Time and Manner of the Offences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the indecent assaults occurred in December 1969 or January 1970 when the offender was about 18 years old and in the manner alleged by the complainants.' "Whether the court should accept the offender's version that the offences occurred in late 1966 or early 1967 when he was about 15 and a half years old and were of the different kind he admitted." 'What sentence should be imposed for indecent assaults committed more than 40 years earlier by an offender who was under 16 at the time.' "Whether delay, the offender's good character, victim impact statements, likely penalties at the time of offending, and extra-curial consequences should affect sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the assaults occurred in December 1969 or January 1970 or in the manner alleged by the complainants. It accepted only the offender's admitted version that he committed indecent assaults when he was about 15 and a half years old. Having regard to the sentencing standards and Children's Court outcomes likely at the time, the offender's youth, contrition, good character, service as a teacher, the serious impact on the victims, and the severe extra-curial consequences of conviction including sex offender registration and employment restrictions, the appropriate sentence was to convict the offender of each offence but impose no...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted of each offence, but no additional penalty was imposed pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders

  • ['I convict the offender of each offence, but pursuant to Sec 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999, I impose no additional penalty.']